pfrennin@altos86.Altos.COM (Peter Frenning) (05/27/90)
In article <1990May24.171942.16523@bach.amd.com> phil@pepsi.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <2789@hsv3.UUCP> sv@hsv3.UUCP (Steve Verity) writes: >|Supported modes: 640x480x256 >| 800x600x16 >| 720x540x16 >| 720x540x256 (512K VRAM only) >| 1024x768x16 > >No 800x600x256? > >-- >Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Nope, I have downloaded the files and there is precisely what's mentioned above the good news, I suppose, is that they work :-) +-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------+ |Peter Frenning, Altos Computer Systems, San Jose | ***** TANSTAAFL ***** | |2641 Orchard Parkway, San Jose, CA 95134 | There Ain't No Such Thing | |pfrennin@Altos.COM (..!uunet|sun!altos!pfrennin) | As A Free Lunch (Heinlein)| +-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
Steve Jackson <SEJ@BYUVM.BITNET> (05/29/90)
I am new to Usenet. Please help me to realize if this is the correct group to post questions like this to. I have been reading all of your comments concerning Windows and would like to know what 'windowing' package is good for development. I have heard that Metawindows is also good. Could someone direct me to either a review of the packages, or help me to understand why I would want Windows, Metawindows, PC-Tools, or any other package for development of pop-up windows. Thank you VERY much.
mj@hpihoah.HP.COM (Marlin Jones) (05/29/90)
I had the same problem with the Logitech mouse. It was caused by using the Logitech mouse driver in my config.sys file *and* trying to run windows. The work around is to not load the mouse driver - windows then boots (and the mouse works). The problem is of course that non of your non-windows apps can use the mouse... Marlin Jones hplabs!hpda!mj
a516@mindlink.UUCP (Jordan Melville) (05/30/90)
I have been using Windows 3.0 for a few days now, and I have noticed the
following things:
1) It does "multi-task" quite well, but in my opinion, the use of a graphics
environment slows it down just enough to make DESQview faster.
2) The priority system of processor splicing is great! For quite a while I have
envied a friend with an Amiga at his ability to adjust what each task gets, not
just a forground/background processor split.
3) The setup was one of the best I have ever seen. Well written, easy to use,
and nice to look at to boot. (anyone know how to get the dithered blue screen
as a background? Looked quite nice)
4) The 'background picture' option is quite fun to play with, but can be
distracting at times.
5) The Windows are very fast and easy to use. Using a Mouse, I can navigate
with speed and efficiency.
6) A problem: unfortunately Windows is a memory hog to be admired. If you want
to use it seriously I suggest at least 4 megs and quite a large ram disk.
7) In short, if you use programs which use graphics, go with Windows 3.0. If
you want raw speed with text programs such as word processors and accounting
packages, go with DESQview, it seems to run a bit faster and is better suited
for the text environment.
Just my $0.02.
Jordan.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan C. Melville Voice: (604) 943-7155
Vancouver, BC BBS: (604) 943-3503 (2400baud)
"There's blood in the UUCP: {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a516
streets, it's up to my a516@mindlink.UUCP
ankles" - The Doorsshim@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Sam Shim) (05/30/90)
In article <9330008@hpihoah.HP.COM> mj@hpihoah.HP.COM (Marlin Jones) writes: >I had the same problem with the Logitech mouse. It was caused by using the >Logitech mouse driver in my config.sys file *and* trying to run windows. >The work around is to not load the mouse driver - windows then boots (and the >mouse works). The problem is of course that non of your non-windows apps >can use the mouse... I use the mouse.com driver and it works just fine under Windows 3.0. My guess is that there is a particular order in which drivers in config.sys have to be loaded (probably himem.sys first), and loading them in the wrong order can cause problems. Running the mouse.com driver solves the problem, at least for me. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Sam Shim | "I didn't do it... | | EECS Departmental Computing Organization | It wasn't me... | | University of Michigan | Nobody saw me do it... | | Ann Arbor, MI 48109 | Nobody can prove a thing..." | | internet: shim@eecs.umich.edu | - Bart Simpson | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
pfrennin@altos86.Altos.COM (Peter Frenning) (05/31/90)
In article <9330008@hpihoah.HP.COM> mj@hpihoah.HP.COM (Marlin Jones) writes: >I had the same problem with the Logitech mouse. It was caused by using the >Logitech mouse driver in my config.sys file *and* trying to run windows. >The work around is to not load the mouse driver - windows then boots (and the >mouse works). The problem is of course that non of your non-windows apps >can use the mouse... > >Marlin Jones hplabs!hpda!mj Hmmm, my problem is/was the exact opposite, that is to say that i didn't have the mouse driver loaded. The Windows setup correctly reported having found a Logitech mouse, and proceded with the install, however, at the point where it starts Windows, or rather is supposed to, it simply hangs the machine. Same thing happens if I reconfigure from within the Control Panel and then restarts. I have given up for now and simply switches mice between Windows 3.0 and X-Windows, when the dust settles I hope that either Microsoft or Logitech come up with an explanation or better even, a solution. PS: Shouldn't we move this to comp.windows.ms? +-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------+ |Peter Frenning, Altos Computer Systems, San Jose | ***** TANSTAAFL ***** | |2641 Orchard Parkway, San Jose, CA 95134 | There Ain't No Such Thing | |pfrennin@Altos.COM (..!uunet|sun!altos!pfrennin) | As A Free Lunch (Heinlein)| +-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
MJB@cup.portal.com (Martin J Brown-Jr) (05/31/90)
I am using a Logitech Hi-rez bus mouse with Windows3.0, and everything
works fine (as far as I can tell). In my autoexec.bat file there is the
following line:
c:\windows\mouse.com /Y
I believe that this line is added by the Windows3.0 install program
(I didn't have a dir c:\windows before the W3.0 installation).
Didn't te install program ask about the mouse, and if it was
Micorsoft Mouse compatible? The Logitech mouse IS MSMouse compatible.
- MJB -
USENET: mjb@cup.portal.comdrp@vpnet.chi.il.us (Douglas Pokorny) (06/02/90)
Quite well, I haven't had a program yet that has caused a problem or "mysterious circumstance". It's ability to handle both text based and graphics based non-windows applications is impressive. (Software like: Telix, Word for DOS, Word perfect, Word for Windows, Turbo C, Deluxe Paint, X-Tree gold, Norton Utilities, etc...) The nicest aspect of Windows 3.0 is that it seems to use all of the features of the 386 cpu to its fullest, with virtual memory, virtual 8086 machines, and the like. It seems to be the environment of choice when it comes to developing new software. It doesn't make sense these days for every programmer to have to re-invent the wheel when it comes to displaying information on the screen. +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | How do icons work? | | What is an address bus? | | How does a mouse let me move the cursor around the screen? | | Answers to all this and more in Time/Life's new series.... | +-----------------+-----------+----------------------------------------------+ | Douglas Pokorny | drp@vpnet | "I've sold my OS/9 machine and gone 80386.." | +-----------------+-----------+----------------------------------------------+
jmerrill@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Confusion Reigns) (06/02/90)
In article <30372@cup.portal.com> MJB@cup.portal.com (Martin J Brown-Jr) writes: >I am using a Logitech Hi-rez bus mouse with Windows3.0, and everything >works fine (as far as I can tell). In my autoexec.bat file there is the >following line: > c:\windows\mouse.com /Y Does anyone know what the /Y switch does? I can't find it anywhere in the documentation. -- Jason Merrill jmerrill@jarthur.claremont.edu
pgd@bbt.se (P.Garbha) (06/02/90)
In article <2447@zipeecs.umich.edu> shim@eecs.umich.edu (Sam Shim) writes: > I use the mouse.com driver and it works just fine under Windows 3.0. My >guess is that there is a particular order in which drivers in config.sys have >to be loaded (probably himem.sys first), and loading them in the wrong order >can cause problems. Running the mouse.com driver solves the problem, at >least for me. I have a summagraphics graphics tablet, and there is no selection for that in the installation program of Windows 3.0 Running the smouse.com program before Windows does not help at all. Does anyone have any idea where i can get a driver for the summagraphic tablet? (Don't tell me to go to the dealer with it -- i did not buy it, and i don't even know who bought it) Can i use the old windows driver (it works in "real" mode). I also have a 19" hi-res color screen. That driver works with windows in "real" mode (8086-mode). But i don't get the new 3-D effect on buttons etc. Why that?
johns@vpnet.chi.il.us (John R. Scherer) (06/02/90)
Doug, I am running windows 3 on a 12Mhz 286 with 4 mb of ram and it's wonderful! Now all I need is more Window Apps!
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (06/03/90)
In article <2666e9f5-1d94.1comp.sys.ibm.pc-1@vpnet.chi.il.us> drp@vpnet.chi.il.us (Douglas Pokorny) writes: > >The nicest aspect of Windows 3.0 is that it seems to use all of the >features of the 386 cpu to its fullest, with virtual memory, virtual >8086 machines, and the like. > >It seems to be the environment of choice when it comes to developing new >software. It doesn't make sense these days for every programmer to have to >re-invent the wheel when it comes to displaying information on the screen. I still don't understand exactly what MW 3.0 has to offer with respect to protected mode applications. Given a 386 system and Windows 3.0, what else do you need to develop and run protected mode applications using more than 640K and linear address space (no 8086 segmented memory). Do you need a DOS extender on the side? Do you need new compilers and/or linker? Can Windows deal with applications written for the existing DOS extenders? (I suspect the answer for this one is no)?
bxw@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au (Brad Willcott) (06/05/90)
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >I still don't understand exactly what MW 3.0 has to offer with respect >to protected mode applications. >Given a 386 system and Windows 3.0, what else do you need to develop >and run protected mode applications using more than 640K and >linear address space (no 8086 segmented memory). OS/2 with 8Mb RAM. <= For Development System. Forget Windows and MS-DOS. Develop even your DOS apps. in this environment. -- Brad Willcott, ACSnet: bxw@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz Computing Services, Internet: bxw@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au Australian Defence Force Academy, UUCP:!uunet!munnari.oz.au!ccadfa.oz!bxw Northcott Dr. Campbell ACT Australia 2600 +61 6 268 8584 +61 6 268 8150 (Fax)
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (06/06/90)
In article <1595@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au> bxw@ccadfa.adfa.oz.au (Brad Willcott) writes: >ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > >>I still don't understand exactly what MW 3.0 has to offer with respect >>to protected mode applications. > >>Given a 386 system and Windows 3.0, what else do you need to develop >>and run protected mode applications using more than 640K and >>linear address space (no 8086 segmented memory). > >OS/2 with 8Mb RAM. <= For Development System. Forget Windows and MS-DOS. >Develop even your DOS apps. in this environment. > That was not really the point. From the adds and reviews of MSW 3.0, I had the impression that the most pressing limitations of DOS (Multitasking and > 640K) would be gone, at least for 386 systems. Is this true? Can I program Windows applications using more than 640K (EMS doesn't count)? What compilers do I have to use (at what cost)? Can protected-mode apps be multitasked? Is a PC + MS Windows 3.0 the poor-person workstation?
iain@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Iain Fogg) (06/27/90)
There's been a fair bit of noise made in the media recently about the release of Windows 3.0. One MicroSoft high-flyer even suggested that EVERYONE currently running Dos would eventually run Windows 3.0. What does Windows have to offer me? At this stage I'm sure I don't need it but I could probably be convinced otherwise. Iain.
tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) (06/27/90)
In article <4085@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> iain@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >There's been a fair bit of noise made in the media recently about the >release of Windows 3.0. One MicroSoft high-flyer even suggested that >EVERYONE currently running Dos would eventually run Windows 3.0. What >does Windows have to offer me? A graphical user interface, multi-tasking, and one real cool game of solitaire! :-) Tom Rombouts Torrance Techie Voice: (213) 538-7108
iain@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Iain Fogg) (06/28/90)
tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) writes: >In article <4085@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> iain@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >>There's been a fair bit of noise made in the media recently about the >>release of Windows 3.0. One MicroSoft high-flyer even suggested that >>EVERYONE currently running Dos would eventually run Windows 3.0. What >>does Windows have to offer me? >A graphical user interface, multi-tasking, and one real cool game >of solitaire! :-) Multi-tasking? I don't think so. From what I understand Windows gives you pseudo-multi-tasking but the context switching process is the user! Hardly what I'd call multi-tasking. Iain.
brian@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Brian Hoffman) (06/28/90)
In article <4100@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> iain@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) writes: > >>In article <4085@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> iain@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >>>There's been a fair bit of noise made in the media recently about the >>>release of Windows 3.0. One MicroSoft high-flyer even suggested that >>>EVERYONE currently running Dos would eventually run Windows 3.0. What >>>does Windows have to offer me? > >>A graphical user interface, multi-tasking, and one real cool game >>of solitaire! :-) > > Multi-tasking? I don't think so. From what I understand Windows gives > you pseudo-multi-tasking but the context switching process is the > user! Hardly what I'd call multi-tasking. > > Iain. Try understanding a little more. Windows 3.0 on a 386 machine gives true multitasking. You Unix people don't believe anything is running in the background unless you can type the darn '&'. However, Windows 3.0 does not do 'true' multitasking when running in the 'Standard' or 'Real' modes (i.e. not 386 enhanced mode). RTFM. |Brian Hoffman | |brian@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu | |Quote: "A red sky at night may be a shepard's delight, but you're |
cornell@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (joel s cornell) (06/28/90)
I tried to install Windows 3.0 on an Epson Equity IIe (80286/12 with 1M RAM and VGA), and it wouldn't work with VGA, but it worked fine when I installed it as mono VGA. I then tried to change it to VGA, but it kicks out. I tried playing around with the drivers and stuff in my autoexec.bat and config.sys files, but that didn't help either. Does anyone know what's wrong or has anyone tried installing it on a similar system? Thanks, Joel Cornell Lapp Insulator Company LeRoy, New York
poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (06/28/90)
In article <4100@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> iain@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) writes: > >>In article <4085@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> iain@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >>>There's been a fair bit of noise made in the media recently about the >>>release of Windows 3.0. One MicroSoft high-flyer even suggested that >>>EVERYONE currently running Dos would eventually run Windows 3.0. What >>>does Windows have to offer me? > >>A graphical user interface, multi-tasking, and one real cool game >>of solitaire! :-) > > Multi-tasking? I don't think so. From what I understand Windows gives > you pseudo-multi-tasking but the context switching process is the > user! Hardly what I'd call multi-tasking. It is not the best, but yes it does do multitasking of Windows applications in all modes, and will multitask DOS applications in enhanced mode. I routinely run Compuserve Info Manager in a DOS windows, downloading programs over modem while playing windows solitaire or other such stuff while I wait. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
wallwey@snoopy.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) (06/28/90)
In article <4100@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> iain@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: > > Multi-tasking? I don't think so. From what I understand Windows gives > you pseudo-multi-tasking but the context switching process is the > user! Hardly what I'd call multi-tasking. > > Iain. You are WRONG. Windows aps can really multitask! I have played a version of tetris for Windows 3.0 WHILE at the same time DOWNLOADING a file using kermit in the terminal program included in windows! In enhanced (386) mode with enough memory you can even multitask DOS PROGRAMS! In real and standard (86 and 286 modes) you must settle for task switching for DOS programs but you can still multitask windows programs. Dean Wallwey
bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) (06/28/90)
In article <1990Jun28.050337.7529@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> brian@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Brian Hoffman) writes: >Try understanding a little more. Windows 3.0 on a 386 machine gives true >multitasking. You Unix people don't believe anything is running in the >background unless you can type the darn '&'. I once had a unix fanatic (NOT a guru) try to explain why my msdos PC could not really multitask. However, he was having a hard time starting a Unix background process ('&') that did something meaningful and obvious. In the meantime I had started about 3 cube demos running under windows and asked him "you mean something like this?" He stood there dumbfounded as I started a few more. This wasn't quite fair, but the notion that a PC can't multitask (the *right* way) without Unix should have died years ago. * Bruce Benson + Internet - bwb@sei.cmu.edu + + * Software Engineering Institute + Compuserv - 76226,3407 + >--|> * Carnegie Mellon University + Voice - 412 268 8496 + + * Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890 + + US Air Force
arsen@milkfs.itstd.sri.com (Tom Arseneault) (06/28/90)
In article <4100@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> iain@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) writes: > >>In article <4085@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> iain@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >>>There's been a fair bit of noise made in the media recently about the >>>release of Windows 3.0. One MicroSoft high-flyer even suggested that >>>EVERYONE currently running Dos would eventually run Windows 3.0. What >>>does Windows have to offer me? > >>A graphical user interface, multi-tasking, and one real cool game >>of solitaire! :-) > > Multi-tasking? I don't think so. From what I understand Windows gives > you pseudo-multi-tasking but the context switching process is the > user! Hardly what I'd call multi-tasking. > > Iain. If you are running Windows Applications you get true multiTasking in any mode. If you are using either real or standard mode you will get context switching for nonwindows application but on a 386 machine using the 386 enhanced mode you can multitast even nonwindows applications and run them in a window too. As a long time Windows hater I am ashame to admit I LOVE WINDOWS 3.0!! I have only been playing around with it for a few days and only in real mode so far but Microsoft seems to have fixed everthing I had complaints about and added so much more to love that I now feel unfaithfull to DesqView my first Love. Thomas J. Arseneault arsen@itstd.sri.com
cb@sequoia.execu.com (Christopher D. Brown) (06/29/90)
In article <4100@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> iain@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: [prior messages deleted] > Multi-tasking? I don't think so. From what I understand Windows gives > you pseudo-multi-tasking but the context switching process is the > user! Hardly what I'd call multi-tasking. > > Iain. I believe that this is the second or third time around but ... Windows 3 really does multitask, at least in 386 enhanced mode. I can open two DOS windows, set them to background mode, rapidly enter DIR in each window, and watch both DIR's run at the same time. The approach is does not yield perfect load balancing under all loading situations but it is competent. cb -- Christopher D. Brown Digital: {uunet|texbell|cs.utexas.edu}!execu!cb Analog: (512) 327-7070 Physical: Execucom, 108 Wild Basin Road, Two Wild Basin, Austin, TX 78764
jal@occrsh.ATT.COM (J_Allen_Schones) (06/29/90)
brian@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Brian Hoffman) writes: [ lots of stuff deleted ] +---------------------------------------------------------------------- | However, Windows 3.0 does not do 'true' multitasking when running in | the 'Standard' or 'Real' modes (i.e. not 386 enhanced mode). +---------------------------------------------------------------------- I read a review on W3.0. The review stated that W3.0 is *not* a winner on 286 or lower machines, but works well on 386 machines. My question: Will Windows 3.0 perform multitasking on the 386-->SX<--? I think it does, but I'm not sure. -- J. Allen Schones | Uucp: att!okcedu!jal | Phone: (405) 491-4950 AT&T Network Systems | Inet: jal@okcedu.att.com | Fax: (405) 491-4530 NAOC307720 | CIS: 76334,3555 | Attn. Schones (0772)
dev@ei.ecn.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) (06/29/90)
In article <7671@fy.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: >I once had a unix fanatic (NOT a guru) try to explain why my msdos PC >could not really multitask. However, he was having a hard time starting >a Unix background process ('&') that did something meaningful and obvious. In >the meantime I had started about 3 cube demos running under windows and >asked him "you mean something like this?" He stood there dumbfounded as I >started a few more. This wasn't quite fair, but the notion that a PC can't >multitask (the *right* way) without Unix should have died years ago. Granted, a PC can multi-task. The problem is, what it multi-tasks. Unix for a PC, OK. OS/2, maybe OK (super MS-DOS, but still TOO like MS-DOS). But MS-DOS itself? Ick. Although Unix is older, at least it is open enough to change. Not so primitive as MS-DOS running on a powerhorse 386 in 1990. Not a flame or anything, just a note on the primitive state of our desktop PC operating system. Larry Weeks dev@ecn.purdue.edu -- Larry Weeks |"Take time to deliberate, but when the time for Purdue University | action has arrived, stop thinking and go in." Astro. Engineering | -- Napoleon Bonaparte dev@ecn.purdue.edu |"Education is a journey, not a destination."
iain@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Iain Fogg) (06/29/90)
bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: >In article <1990Jun28.050337.7529@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> brian@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Brian Hoffman) writes: >>Try understanding a little more. Windows 3.0 on a 386 machine gives true >>multitasking. You Unix people don't believe anything is running in the >>background unless you can type the darn '&'. I've got to take exception to this. Even though I use Unix at work, I also use Dos at home, and I happen to like it (no flames please :-) In my original posting I was trying to ascertain the technical merits, or otherwise, of Windows 3.0. I was not attempting to belittle the product. Clearly, my understanding of the extent of multitasking available under Windows was wide of the mark, but I don't think it was necessary (or warranted) for all you darn Dos people to pigeonhole all us darn Unix people. As it happens not all Unix people are as one-eyed as you seem to beleive. >I once had a unix fanatic (NOT a guru) try to explain why my msdos PC >could not really multitask. However, he was having a hard time starting >a Unix background process ('&') that did something meaningful and obvious. In >the meantime I had started about 3 cube demos running under windows and >asked him "you mean something like this?" He stood there dumbfounded as I >started a few more. This wasn't quite fair, but the notion that a PC can't >multitask (the *right* way) without Unix should have died years ago. Fair enough, but I'm not exactly sure what mean by the _right_ way. How many different sorts of multi-tasking are there? Iain.
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (06/30/90)
From article <819@occrsh.ATT.COM>, by jal@occrsh.ATT.COM (J_Allen_Schones): > My question: > Will Windows 3.0 perform multitasking on the 386-->SX<--? > I think it does, but I'm not sure. Yes! I'm using it right now. I have a VT100 terminal emulator I wrote running in the foreground window. This is NOT a windows application, but is a normal Turbo Pascal program, using direct screen writes. The emulator is running IN A WIN 3 WINDOW UNDER THE TURBO PASCAL ENVIRONMENT (which also runs in a WIN 3 Window). We have a 386 sx with 2M of memory. There is a lot of swapping, but the programs run fine. The only problem I noticed was that the mouse which works in the program when it is running full screen is ignored when the program runs in a window. I guess the window owns the mouse all the time. Switching tasks between the Windows applications like the clock, paintbrush, etc. is reasonably fast. However, switching to a non-windows DOS application can be VERY slow. I've only got 2M of memory, and I've configured the TP to be the MOST memory intensive settings (save all graphics, demand 640K of normal memory plus 64K of extened memory, etc.) When I switch from a windows application back to my terminal emulator, it can take a few minutes of swapping before I can do anything. Also, the terminal emulator occasionally freezes while (I assume) the other tasks are getting some time slices. However, with another few meg of memory it would probably handle this setup quite well. I also have not even opened the manual yet, so there are probably a lot of configuration settings I can do to improve the performance. As it is, this is a GREAT improvement over the old windows, which wouldn't even RUN these programs concurrently. - Kevin Lowey
bill@polygen.uucp (Bill Poitras) (07/04/90)
In article <1990Jun28.050337.7529@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> brian@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Brian Hoffman) writes: >> Multi-tasking? I don't think so. From what I understand Windows gives >> you pseudo-multi-tasking but the context switching process is the >> user! Hardly what I'd call multi-tasking. Not true!!! Run 3 clock programs at once, and see if they constantly tick. They all will, no mattter which clock has the focus. I dabbled into Windows programming a while ago, and found that you can multitask applications. The thing is that Windows Real, Standard modes, can only do non-preemtive multitasking. That means that each app must behave enough to give up the CPU when its done processing one message, such as a paint message. I know that Windows 2.x has always had this, I believe that 1.x did too. +-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+ | Bill Poitras | Polygen Corporation | {princeton mit-eddie | | (bill) | Waltham, MA USA | bu sunne}!polygen!bill | | | | bill@polygen.com | +-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
ajai@sce.carleton.ca (Ajai Sehgal) (07/04/90)
For those having problems with Windows 3 and VGA, I came across an interesting find. After loading Windows 3, the system (286 clone 1Mb memory Standard VGA) worked fine .... for a while. At intermittent intervals (not always repeatable) the screen colours would get messed up and unreadable. The mouse cursor (arrow) became a 1" by 1.5" box which left traces of colours all over the screen. Upon exiting to DOS Prompt and returning by EXIT, all was fine.... for a while. At times I would get protected mode violation errors and at other times on startingWindows after the logo the screen would go grey-purple with the hour glass in the middle and the system locked up. The cause of these problems was very insidious. In the autoexec.bat, I had loaded the driver for the serial mouse (a Genius Mouse). Somehow this conflicted with the mouse driver in Windows causing all the problems. After deleting the installation of the driver from the autoexec.bat, Windows 3 works as advertised. Hows that for weird symptoms! -- Ajai.
emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson) (07/07/90)
In article <7671@fy.sei.cmu.edu+, bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: + In article <1990Jun28.050337.7529@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu+ brian@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Brian Hoffman) writes: + + I once had a unix fanatic (NOT a guru) try to explain why my msdos PC + could not really multitask. However, he was having a hard time starting + a Unix background process ('&') that did something meaningful and obvious. In + the meantime I had started about 3 cube demos running under windows and + asked him "you mean something like this?" He stood there dumbfounded as I + started a few more. This wasn't quite fair, but the notion that a PC can't + multitask (the *right* way) without Unix should have died years ago. + Are you saying that if I buy Windows 3.0, I can take any mix of exes and coms from my \bin and run them all concurrently like I can on one of our Suns? Great! why didn't anyone say so before? 'Scuse me while I go find my cheque book.. Dave E.
bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) (07/08/90)
In article <685@marvin.moncam.co.uk> emmo@moncam.co.uk (Dave Emmerson) writes: >In article <7671@fy.sei.cmu.edu+, bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: >+ In article <1990Jun28.050337.7529@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu+ brian@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Brian Hoffman) writes: >+ >+ I once had a unix fanatic (NOT a guru) try to explain why my msdos PC >+ could not really multitask. However, he was having a hard time starting >+ a Unix background process ('&') that did something meaningful and obvious. In >+ the meantime I had started about 3 cube demos running under windows and >+ asked him "you mean something like this?" He stood there dumbfounded as I >+ started a few more. This wasn't quite fair, but the notion that a PC can't >+ multitask (the *right* way) without Unix should have died years ago. >+ > >Are you saying that if I buy Windows 3.0, I can take any mix of exes and coms >from my \bin and run them all concurrently like I can on one of our Suns? >Great! why didn't anyone say so before? >'Scuse me while I go find my cheque book.. No. Only that for many people the *PC can't multitask* position is repeated without any understanding of either nonUnix or Unix OSes. You, again, specify a given *right way* and imply that since win3.0 doesn't do it in this *right way* then it must not be able to *truely* multitask. Tell me what I can functionally do under any given OS, then I can decide if it meets my needs. Starting 50 applications that can run *simultaneously* in some fashion may be useful but so is starting 50 apps that only run when I work directly on them. Something in between may also be useful. How much does your sun/os/software cost compared to another configuration? Answers these questions then go find your cheque book and buy what you need and can afford. * Bruce Benson + Internet - bwb@sei.cmu.edu + + * Software Engineering Institute + Compuserv - 76226,3407 + >--|> * Carnegie Mellon University + Voice - 412 268 8496 + + * Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890 + + US Air Force
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (07/09/90)
In article <7770@fy.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: | >Are you saying that if I buy Windows 3.0, I can take any mix of exes and coms | >from my \bin and run them all concurrently like I can on one of our Suns? | >Great! why didn't anyone say so before? | >'Scuse me while I go find my cheque book.. | | No. Only that for many people the *PC can't multitask* position is repeated | without any understanding of either nonUnix or Unix OSes. You don't need to understand any particular o/s to know what multitasking means, it's not a buzzword but has a clear meaning. Standard MS-DOS is *single tasking*. One thing gets done at a time. You can start a 2nd task, but the 1st will stop while the 2nd runs. Programs which are exceptions to this are using non-DOS mechanisms (see below). Early versions of Windows were *task switching*. You could have a number of processes running, but the switch from one to the other is done manually by the user. Desqview is multitasking. If you have several processes running, all will get a slice of CPU time in a given chunk of real time (say 1 sec). No user intervention is needed to make this happen. Windows 3.0 can do this for some but not all programs (I'm told), depending on how well behaved they are (ie if they do some of the work for the Window manager themselves). Some people tell me most programs will work, other that most won't. The fact that vendors are now selling upgrades to versions which "work with Windows" gives me the idea that normal old code doesn't work all that well. There are lots of applications for all types of O/S, but the reason that people say "DOS is not multitasking" is because it's true, and the existance of things like Sidekick, Desqview, Windows, and seven versions of UNIX indicates to me that there is a need for it, even if some people don't realize that this is the intent of all the products. In rebuttal to your statement about people not understanding UNIX, all you need to understand is DOS and multitasking to know that there is no overlap. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) (07/09/90)
In article <7770@fy.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: >How much does your >sun/os/software cost compared to another configuration? In point of fact, a Sun SparcStation 1+ with monochrome monitor and local disk probably costs LESS than a comprably (sp?) equipped IBM ??? (fill in with your favorite combination of hardware/software to comprise an equivalent system). Furthermore, the Sun will run circles around the PC and is a superior machine in every way. Each time I use a PC, I am amazed as to how poorly designed a system it really is. Oh, as to multi-tasking, the "normal" state for a networked Sun is to be running on the order of 30+ simultaneous tasks (admittly, most of these are sleeping until needed...) -- gerry roston, field robotics center robotics institute, carnegie mellon university pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 15213 (412) 268-6557 gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu
popeye@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Karl Richard Buck) (07/10/90)
gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >In article <7770@fy.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes: >>How much does your >>sun/os/software cost compared to another configuration? >In point of fact, a Sun SparcStation 1+ with monochrome monitor >and local disk probably costs LESS than a comprably (sp?) equipped >IBM ??? (fill in with your favorite combination of hardware/software >to comprise an equivalent system). Furthermore, the Sun will run >circles around the PC and is a superior machine in every way. Each >time I use a PC, I am amazed as to how poorly designed a system it >really is. Look through any catalog for sun software and compare it to dos mail order prices. Theres a difference in price by about a factor of 10. Don't get me wrong, I have used and love SparcStations but the hardware and software prices are a bit prohibitive for home and general office use. I'd be interested in what you consider a complete useable Sparcstation configuration and what is a comparable IBM compatable configuration. -- 731 Moro popeye@matt.ksu.ksu.edu Manhattan, KS 66502 popeye@ksuvm.ksu.edu (913)537-3666 kxb@phobos.cis.ksu.edu